Middle East Restraint: Iran Defies Aggression

Power struggles, war and conflict has seemingly always been rife in the Middle East, and the reluctance of Iran and Hezbollah to retaliate following the assassinations of Fouad Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh sheds light on a significant, yet overlooked, narrative: both have consistently shown restraint and a preference for peace over violence.

Contrast that with the aggressive lust for slaughter and genocide of the US and Israel, and it underscores  their roles as provocateurs, pushing the Middle East into cycles of violence under the guise of defence and counterterrorism over decades and decades.

The US has masterfully divided and conquered the Arab nations for more than 60 years, but not anymore.

Fouad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander, and Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent leader of Hamas, were assassinated in targeted operations orchestrated by Israel.

The assassinations were not aimed at weakening the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine, both of which are key to the geopolitical dynamics of the region.l but to derail any chance of peace. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on a forever war and not peace - a negotiated peace deal for Israel means prison for Netanyahu.

However, contrary to expectations and the historical tit-for-tat violence in the region, both Iran and Hezbollah have notably refrained from immediate retaliation. It’s a decision that’s not merely a strategic pause but a calculated demonstration of their long-standing commitment to peace—a principle often overshadowed by Western narratives that paint them as aggressors.

Iran and Hezbollah’s response, or lack of to these assassinations is emblematic of a broader strategy that favors diplomacy and restraint over unnecessary conflict.

Despite being labeled as terrorist organisations by the U.S. and Israel, both have a history of prioritising defence and protecting their sovereignty rather than instigating aggression.

Hezbollah, has often been forced into conflict, particularly during the 2006 Lebanon War, where it acted primarily in defence of Lebanese territory against Israeli incursions. The organisation’s primary objective has been to safeguard Lebanon from external threats, not to wage wars of expansion or terror.

Similarly, Iran’s military interventions in the region have been largely defensive or in support of allied governments against insurgencies and foreign interventions, such as in Syria and Iraq. Iran has consistently advocated for regional dialogue and a diplomatic resolution to conflicts, particularly regarding its nuclear program, despite the aggressive posturing and sanctions from the West.

While the West consistently  depicts Iran and Hezbollah as destabilising forces in the Middle East, it’s the U.S. and Israel who have been the primary drivers of instability and violence in the region. The U.S.’s military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria have left a trail of devastation, civilian casualties, and power vacuums that have only fueled further conflict.

Israel’s policies towards Palestine, including the ongoing occupation, genocidal mania and attempt to exterminate the Palestinian people, the blockade of Gaza, and repeated military assaults, have perpetuated a cycle of violence that has left the Palestinian territories in a state of perpetual crisis.

The targeted assassinations of figures like Shukr and Haniyeh are part of a broader strategy of eliminating resistance leaders to maintain control, rather than seeking peaceful solutions to longstanding issues and destroy any chance of peace ever being reached.

Israel’s and the US’s actions underscore a pattern of behavior that can be interpreted as state terrorism—using violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals and ambitions. The assassinations, far from being acts of self-defence, are aggressive moves aimed at silencing opposition and undermining movements that challenge U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region.

However, Iran and Hezbollah’s decision to avoid immediate retaliation is rooted in a pragmatic understanding of the geopolitical landscape. Both Iran and Hezbollah recognise that escalating violence wouldn’t only lead to greater bloodshed but play into the hands of those who seek to justify further aggression against them.

Instead, Iran has consistently called for diplomatic engagement with the West and its neighbors. Its nuclear negotiations with the P5+1, despite numerous challenges, exemplify Iran’s commitment to resolving disputes through dialogue rather than conflict. Even as it faces crippling sanctions and military threats, Iran continues to advocate for a regional security framework that excludes foreign powers and promotes cooperation among Middle Eastern states.

Hezbollah, while maintaining its right to defend Lebanon, has also engaged in Lebanese politics and has been a stabilising force within the country’s complex sectarian landscape. Hezbollah’s political wing works within the democratic system, contributing to governance and social services, which contradicts the image of a purely militant organisation.

The restraint shown by Iran and Hezbollah following the assassinations of Shukr and Haniyeh is testament to their desire for peace and stability in the Middle East. Their actions, or deliberate inaction, stand in direct contrast to the aggressive policies of the US and Israel, which have consistently employed violence as a means to achieve their political objectives.

It’s crucial to re-examine the narratives that dominate Western media and recognise the complex realities of the Middle East. Iran and Hezbollah, often demonised as the region’s primary threats, have demonstrated through their actions a commitment to peace and defense, while the real agents of terror and destabilisation continue to masquerade as defenders of democracy and freedom.

As developments in the Middle East continue heighten, and Hezbollah and Iran consider their retaliatory responses to the assassination of Shukr and Haniyeh. should and how they respond without escalating to a point of all out war, but demonstrate to Israel, they are the power in the region, it becomes increasingly clear true peace will only be achieved when the roles of aggressor and defender are accurately portrayed, and when diplomacy is prioritised over assassination and warfare and Israel and the US are once and for all held to account by the global community for their war crimes.